SynapLogic contract vulnerability triggers large arbitrage: missing parameter validation leads to excessive withdrawal

robot
Abstract generation in progress

【ChainWen】There is a contract security issue worth noting. The SynapLogic’s swapExactTokensForETHSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens function has a serious vulnerability—missing critical parameter validity checks.

What did the attacker do using this vulnerability? Bypassed the whitelist mechanism, specified their own profit address, and directly received the extracted funds. Even more surprisingly, the contract did not verify the total distribution amount of the native tokens, allowing the attacker to arbitrage from two channels at once: first, over-extracting the native tokens themselves; second, simultaneously obtaining newly minted SYP tokens. Both methods combined.

The final result was approximately $186,000 USD being directly transferred away. This case once again reminds developers—when handling token transfers and whitelist logic, parameter boundary checks are essential, and maximum amount validation must be in place. Small oversights can sometimes lead to major vulnerabilities.

View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 4
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
Token_Sherpavip
· 9h ago
ngl this is just basic input validation 101... like we've been screaming about this since 2017. missing boundary checks on token transfers? that's not even a vulnerability, that's negligence dressed up as code. $186k gone because nobody bothered with a simple require() statement lmaooo
Reply0
SolidityNewbievip
· 9h ago
Damn, once again the parameter validation wasn't done properly. What's wrong with these developers?
View OriginalReply0
CryptoNomicsvip
· 9h ago
lmao the parameter validation gap here is literally textbook stochastic vulnerability analysis. if you ran a basic correlation matrix on the contract's audit trails, you'd see the exploit vector was *statistically significant* from day one. devs really out here treating boundary checks like optional features 💀
Reply0
OnchainUndercovervip
· 10h ago
Once again, parameter validation was not properly done, and this time I got caught for 186,000 USD. It seems that most Web3 security incidents follow the same pattern.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)